Thunderpipes:Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: (snip)What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. (snipped for brevity)

So my son ran for Treasurer at this school in 5th grade. He lost to a girl that promised everyone sno-cones. With a few weeks left in school he called across the playground, "Where's my firkin sno-cone?"It caught on and the rest of the kids kept hounding her for sno-cones. She eventually quit the position and cried whenever the word sno-cone hit her ear. Sno-Cone is her nickname now. I don't think she is coming back next year.This can be ramped up to a larger scale.

Comparing this to a wealth tax is disingenuous. A wealth tax would more or less be fair (not saying it's a good idea) while this is random. Own 100k worth of shares but nothing in your bank account? No loss. Have that 100k in your bank instead? Lose 10% of it.

seanpg71:Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you. But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!

Just FYI, paying for methadone clinics is much cheaper than paying for police investigations of the property crimes committed by addicts. And putting people in section 8 housing is much cheaper than paying for them to be housed in jails. There isn't that whole "fark you for making bad choices" aspect, but it is more efficient.

Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.

Flint Ironstag:Comparing this to a wealth tax is disingenuous. A wealth tax would more or less be fair (not saying it's a good idea) while this is random. Own 100k worth of shares but nothing in your bank account? No loss. Have that 100k in your bank instead? Lose 10% of it.

They are still taking from wealthy foreigners. Likely not a good move for a small country.

Thunderpipes:seanpg71: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you. But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!

Just FYI, paying for methadone clinics is much cheaper than paying for police investigations of the property crimes committed by addicts. And putting people in section 8 housing is much cheaper than paying for them to be housed in jails. There isn't that whole "fark you for making bad choices" aspect, but it is more efficient.

Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.

So you think that the teachers don't deserve a retirement? And that the issue isn't that we have the lowest tax rates in 30 years and a growing, aging population?

I've noticed that the either-or fallacy is your favorite. I'm going to start pointing it out.

You have implied that Thunderpipes' claim that teachers are owed too much in pensions means that he thinks "that the teachers don't deserve a retirement ." You have no reason to believe this claim. Perhaps he simply believes that teachers deserve some, but less, pensions for their retirement. Thus there is a third option. That is why your assertion is an either-or fallacy.

cameroncrazy1984:I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.

Always assuming there was one model to choose from. The variation in income and employment related benefits, healthcare, even median retirement age is enormous. Ironically part of the reason the euro doesn't work in its current form is the lack of homogeneity.

MyKingdomForYourHorse:Gdalescrboz: If it stopped at services I would agree with you. But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

Yes because we want to rape your daughter, kill your puppy, kidnap your wife, and steal all your money so we can give to the crack smoking,HIV infested, herpes laden welfare abusing woman down the street living in her 8 bedroom town house subsidized with section 8, while her 32 kids by 30 different baby daddies run amok in your suburban neighborhood.

The EU is offering a €13 billion bailout, but they want Cypriots to pay for half the bailout with the money in bank accounts. By taking money from Cyprus bank accounts and giving it back to Cyprus banks . . . isn't that kinda circular that the money is already in the banks?

Am I missing something? Isn't this like bailing water from one end of a pool, pouring it into the other end, and saying that you're filling the pool up more?

Why can't the compromise be a half-sized bailout from the EU that doesn't take the half from private bank accounts?

cameroncrazy1984:Thunderpipes: seanpg71: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: You want to take money from people, same thing really. You want the government to have the power to simply take money as they see fit So do you. Unless, of course, you don't want any state provided services. I suppose that's conceivably your position, but it's one that if applied in reality would result in disaster in fairly short order.

If it stopped at services I would agree with you. But liberals don't want it to stop at services.

What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. Only way to find that is by taking more and more and more from anyone who dares to succeed. Eventually, it fails. We will be Greece within 20 years. This is a fact.

Taxes should be broad based, and provide the minimum needed for the government to function. The states, as we debate here, are over 1 trillion in debt just because of teacher pensions (completely underfunded). Did you all know that? This is not about what the government needs, or what services people need. It is about entitlement spending, and what people want. They want taxpayer money given to them. Liberals oblige because it gets them votes and damn the torpedoes!

Just FYI, paying for methadone clinics is much cheaper than paying for police investigations of the property crimes committed by addicts. And putting people in section 8 housing is much cheaper than paying for them to be housed in jails. There isn't that whole "fark you for making bad choices" aspect, but it is more efficient.

Would cost even less if you simply beat down criminals and made being poor so tough they had no choice but to work.

Because jobs always fall from job trees whenever someone "wa ...

camaroncrazy1984, you have just employed the either-or fallacy. You have implied that Thunderpipes' assertion that anyone who wants a job can only get one by the benevolence of government programs, or by one falling from a job tree. There is a third option: perhaps governments could issue an employment tax break during recessions, such as the one Obama extended when he came into office in 2009, which loosened a government impediment to employment. You choose to ignore this third option--that of actually decreasing the scope of a recognized governmental intervention. That is why your assertion is an either-or fallacy.

mrmopar5287:The EU is offering a €13 billion bailout, but they want Cypriots to pay for half the bailout with the money in bank accounts. By taking money from Cyprus bank accounts and giving it back to Cyprus banks . . . isn't that kinda circular that the money is already in the banks?

They are basically saying they will only give a loan of 6 billion, and that loan is conditioned on this haircut.

studs up:Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: (snip)What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. (snipped for brevity)

So my son ran for Treasurer at this school in 5th grade. He lost to a girl that promised everyone sno-cones. With a few weeks left in school he called across the playground, "Where's my firkin sno-cone?"It caught on and the rest of the kids kept hounding her for sno-cones. She eventually quit the position and cried whenever the word sno-cone hit her ear. Sno-Cone is her nickname now. I don't think she is coming back next year.This can be ramped up to a larger scale.

In reality she would've taken out a loan and bought the sno-cones. She could get reelected and do that in perpetuity until she was out of the school and leaving the problem behind and everyone remembering the free sno-cones while she only paid the interest on the loan. The other kids would figure out that doing that was how to get elected. This would keep happening until the lender figured out this was a bad idea or they could no longer pay the interest. Then the whole system would collapse.

KellyX:cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If it were untrue, you would have a point.

You want the EXACT model of the EU countries.

I'm a liberal and I've lived in an EU country, and I don't want the exact model of the EU countries.

So, stop telling us what we want.

Only thing I want is a universal healthcare system... and redheads... blondes too.. with big tits... that like to go to the range with me and shot guns that make those big tits jiggle for a while...

/worse Liberal ever I guess...

To the range? The range is the DEVIL!!! Guns kill you.

You know, I am as conservative as they come in all things but religion (idiots). I would favor a universal health care system, if it was broadly funded. The problem is, when liberals talk about single payer or Obamacare or whatever, it is just a gigantic wealth redistribution. If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing. I know people ignore it, but we have an excellent health care system here if you actually are a hard working family. I should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here. Try that in Canada.

FarkinNortherner:studs up: Unless you are Latvia. Where it worked after all the gnashing of Keynesian teeth failed to sway their govt. Of course the fact that they are the fastest growing economy in the region now gets mostly ignored.

Latvia's debts have quadrupled, its unemployment rate is at 12% despite a reduction in the size of its under 25 workforce (thanks to economic migration), median incomes have fallen by 35% and an already abysmal standard of education and healthcare provision has got even worse. It also suffered the largest contraction of any European economy.

Still, it's now in growth, partly as a result of selling below-cost timber into Sweden thanks to European subsidies, so that's the post-Keynesians justified...

Um no , no , no....I could keep going, but your devout obstinance in the face of facts bores me. Keep spewing, useful idiot. Even your own team is admits that they did the right thing. I do love however that you think that the standard of healthcare and education is so poor after years of Keynesian economics. I'm sure you didn't mean to say that you expected this new recovery to have all of that fixed in the first few years after decades of mismanagement and failed policies. Have faith, things will improve under a more free economy.

DamnYankees:Someone decides to teach you how to write in English and ruin fark thread forever?

It isn't a complicated idea to grasp. Imagine the economy divided into two parts, an individual and every other actor in the economy. You are suggesting that if we give the individual currency in exchange for nothing, and allow him to buy something from the second part of the economy, that second part will be better off for it in the long run. In other words, an exchange of a piece of paper for a real good somehow makes the group receiving the piece of paper better off.

Thunderpipes:If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.

Bloody William:alabasterblack: How to both ruin and save an economy.Depending on who you talk to.[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 271x186]

Aaaand that's proof you have no understanding that macroecnomics is slightly different than microeconomics, or that there are many cases in microeconomics as well that "spending what you don't have" is the preferable option for long-term growth.

MattStafford:that second part will be better off for it in the long run. In other words, an exchange of a piece of paper for a real good somehow makes the group receiving the piece of paper better off.

cameroncrazy1984:Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.

False. Japan has an individual mandate system somewhat similar to the private-provider system we are about to experience in the USA. It is not single-payer healthcare.

cameroncrazy1984:Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.

And I already posted about that. I have excellent health care. try getting an elective knee surgery done in Canada, see how long it takes you.

People always making crap up any way. The poor here have excellent health care as well.

FarkinNortherner Gdalescrboz: If it stopped at services I would agree with you. But liberals don't want it to stop at services. Fairly strongly depends on what you regard as a service that the government should be providing. However, irrespective of political hue or view of the role and size of the state, Thunderpipes apparent implication that he would remove the government's capacity to raise any mandatory taxes is ludicrous.

I am of the opinion that if the gov't is offering to spend money on a person specifically because they meet a requirement, such as you earn bellow XXX, it is not a service. What that is, is a bribe with other people's money. For example, we will pay for your health insurance with so-and-so's money. Or, we will pay for your food with so-and-so's money, etc., all you have to do is vote for me. The left would have an argument if such bribes came with strings attached; forcing people to go to school for example. But they don't, they give away what other people have earned in exchange for a vote. When only certain people qualify for funding, and that funding is another persons money, you aren't providing a service you are bribing.

MadMattressMack:studs up: Thunderpipes: Gdalescrboz: FarkinNortherner: Thunderpipes: (snip)What liberals here want, is the exact same thing as the EU. They want to promise everyone the world so they get and stay in power. (snipped for brevity)

So my son ran for Treasurer at this school in 5th grade. He lost to a girl that promised everyone sno-cones. With a few weeks left in school he called across the playground, "Where's my firkin sno-cone?"It caught on and the rest of the kids kept hounding her for sno-cones. She eventually quit the position and cried whenever the word sno-cone hit her ear. Sno-Cone is her nickname now. I don't think she is coming back next year.This can be ramped up to a larger scale.

In reality she would've taken out a loan and bought the sno-cones. She could get reelected and do that in perpetuity until she was out of the school and leaving the problem behind and everyone remembering the free sno-cones while she only paid the interest on the loan. The other kids would figure out that doing that was how to get elected. This would keep happening until the lender figured out this was a bad idea or they could no longer pay the interest. Then the whole system would collapse.

Scary as hell isn't it? THE perfect reason to keep things small and transparent.

Wangiss:cameroncrazy1984: Thunderpipes: If you don't have everyone paying, it is not ever going to be a good thing.

Really? Because Canada, Japan, Belgium, the UK, all of these countries have single-payer healthcare and not everyone pays in. And you know what is in common with all of these countries? They all get better healthcare at a lower cost per-capita than the US of A.

False. Japan has an individual mandate system somewhat similar to the private-provider system we are about to experience in the USA. It is not single-payer healthcare.

FarkinNortherner:Thunderpipes: should be getting a plate and 13 screws removed from my tibia soon, wait time for a completely elective operation like this is 5-6 weeks here.

A 'completely elective' major orthopaedic intervention??

I'm not even going to start on how you seemingly think insurance a) works and b) makes a profit.

Correct me then. it is causing me discomfort when I run. But I can run. We have already blown through our deductibles for the year, which are pretty big. I just want this done. I want it done now, not in the Fall or Winter.

Not really major either, spinal, cut me, take a screwdriver and get the screws out, yank the plate, staple it. Actual cost? Probably a few hundred bucks. Billed to insurance? Probably around $4,000.

But of course, I am telling the doctors I cannot function with the plate any more, crippling, etc. Heck, maybe I should tell them it makes me smoke crack, get a whole bunch of extra free stuff.

cameroncrazy1984:Wangiss: cameroncrazy1984: Wangiss: You have implied that Thunderpipes' assertion that anyone who wants a job can only get one by the benevolence of government programs,

I haven't implied it, I flat-out said it. And that was his assertion. "Make being por so hard that he has no choice but to work"

And your assertion was about a job tree. Are you in a unilateral competition to be less sensible than he, or do you perhaps gain a sort of emotional spiff from making fun of people?

I enjoy the fact that you're freaking out about a valid point I made, and that it wasn't even to you.

You didn't make a point unless your point was that your opponent's argument was as silly as your "job tree" proposal. Calling someone silly is hardly anything to be proud of, or consider a "valid point."

And if you think I'm freaking out, I can understand why you do this. It must be fun to imagine people going ape over a few strategic phrases. I'm not sorry to disappoint you: the people on the other end of the monitor are not making Jim Carrey-esque bug eyes faces; they are not reconsidering their life choices; they are not feeling inferior to you. We read your logical fallacies and facepalm sometimes, though. If you're clever, and actually want to change the world for the better, you should employ logic instead of flout it. But then again, that's just my opinion, man.

Bloody William:alabasterblack: How to both ruin and save an economy.Depending on who you talk to.[encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com image 271x186]

Aaaand that's proof you have no understanding that macroecnomics is slightly different than microeconomics, or that there are many cases in microeconomics as well that "spending what you don't have" is the preferable option for long-term growth.

Aaaand there's the proof that you never paid attention in your economics class.

Even my beloved Keynes warned against protracted debt.

If the US had little debt going into this 'crisis' then, yes, spending money may have pulled us out.

But for myriad reasons, we where already indebted beyond the gills, and now spending at a rate that will hurt our finacial future for decades.